Human Events

Elena Kagan was just asked whether she wrote a note on a memo from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Here is the relevant text of the ACOG memo:
"Terminating a pregnancy is indicated in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decision about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and potentially dangerous."
Kagan wrote on the memo, "This would be a disaster." What, exactly, would be a disaster? Presumably, the sentence reading that ACOG could find "no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Kagan was just grilled on this, and at first, she refused to acknowledge that the note was written by her. She said it was "in my handwriting," then began to say that it may have been the product of several people telling her what to say. Finally, she settled on the defense that what she was labeling a "disaster" was the articulation of the paragraph, not the underlying science. She claimed that she was merely trying to square the text of the ACOG statement with the positions it had articulated to the Clinton Administration.
Suuuure.
The final statement from ACOG kept similar language, but heavily played up situations in which partial-birth abortion might in fact be the best medical situation, leaving the text a laborious and conflicting thicket: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."
That statement is much more convenient for a woman who believes wholeheartedly in a right to partial-birth abortion. It at least gives a shout-out to the radical abortion left.
But hey, it was just in her handwriting.

Kagan Lies Again About Her Abortion Views

Elena Kagan was just asked whether she wrote a note on a memo from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Here is the relevant text of the ACOG memo:

“Terminating a pregnancy is indicated in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decision about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and potentially dangerous.”

Kagan wrote on the memo, “This would be a disaster.” What, exactly, would be a disaster? Presumably, the sentence reading that ACOG could find “no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

Kagan was just grilled on this, and at first, she refused to acknowledge that the note was written by her. She said it was “in my handwriting,” then began to say that it may have been the product of several people telling her what to say. Finally, she settled on the defense that what she was labeling a “disaster” was the articulation of the paragraph, not the underlying science. She claimed that she was merely trying to square the text of the ACOG statement with the positions it had articulated to the Clinton Administration.

Suuuure.

The final statement from ACOG kept similar language, but heavily played up situations in which partial-birth abortion might in fact be the best medical situation, leaving the text a laborious and conflicting thicket: “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.”

That statement is much more convenient for a woman who believes wholeheartedly in a right to partial-birth abortion. It at least gives a shout-out to the radical abortion left.

Elena Kagan was just asked whether she wrote a note on a memo from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Here is the relevant text of the ACOG memo:

"Terminating a pregnancy is indicated in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decision about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and potentially dangerous."

Kagan wrote on the memo, "This would be a disaster." What, exactly, would be a disaster? Presumably, the sentence reading that ACOG could find "no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

Kagan was just grilled on this, and at first, she refused to acknowledge that the note was written by her. She said it was "in my handwriting," then began to say that it may have been the product of several people telling her what to say. Finally, she settled on the defense that what she was labeling a "disaster" was the articulation of the paragraph, not the underlying science. She claimed that she was merely trying to square the text of the ACOG statement with the positions it had articulated to the Clinton Administration.

Suuuure.

The final statement from ACOG kept similar language, but heavily played up situations in which partial-birth abortion might in fact be the best medical situation, leaving the text a laborious and conflicting thicket: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision."

That statement is much more convenient for a woman who believes wholeheartedly in a right to partial-birth abortion. It at least gives a shout-out to the radical abortion left.